Russian Satellite Takes Most Detailed 121-Megapixel Image of Earth Yet 123
Diggester writes "The satellite, known as Elektro-L No.1, took an image from its stationary point over 35,000 kilometers above the Indian Ocean. This is the most detailed image of the Earth yet available, capturing the Earth in a single shot with 121-megapixels. NASA satellites use a collection of pictures from multiple flybys stitched together. The detail in the pic is just amazing."
Sweet! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Sweet! (Score:4, Insightful)
Thats only a square 11000 pixels on a side. A 300 dpi laserprinter would make a roughly one yard/one meter printout.
At a slightly higher resolution that would be a metric A0 paper size. printers that big do exist but are kinda expensive. Best upload it to your local printer/office store and let them print it instead of do it yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
um, what?
i'm pretty sure you can have solid reds, greens and blues.
we have the technology to print more than one ink in the same place.
the gamut is pretty different compared to the sRGB we're used to, but it's a stretch to say a printer can only do 1 colour at a time.
Re:Sweet! (Score:5, Informative)
I specified that based on visual acuity limits. There's a lot of optical theory explaining why over 300 dpi is mostly useless for toner on paper. Unless your eyeball lens diameter is 10 times bigger than the average human or your retina cell layout is different than all known humans, it is not optically possible to resolve 3000 dpi or whatever on paper under normal conditions and lighting. Depending on how close you can hold the paper before you can't focus on it anymore, and tangentially depending on how bright the light it (little pinhole camera iris) humans top out around 300 dpi.
Now, projected thru transparencies onto a overhead, higher res works, if you have old fashioned overhead projectors and sit close to the screen. Also there are ugly aliasing and anti-aliasing effects that can be avoided by higher res with real vector scaling. And high res allows better/smoother color mixing, in that bluring together 2**8 pixels of 2**16 color is the same as one 2**24 pixel, more or less. There are also relative brightness/consistency effects where making a "line" that varies from 8 to 9 pixels wide looks a lot less consistent than a line that is 85 or 86 pixels wide at 10 times the res, look at the percentage variation of one pixel. If the lighting is really bad, there are strange shadow effects where you can perceive over 300 dpi if the shadows land just right. Also there are some strange toner based textural issues where the plastic surface of thinner lines literally looks different. And some 3-d effects of toner on paper. So over 300 dpi is not a complete waste of time, just mostly a waste with average pictures under average conditions. It would be extremely hard to justify over 1200 dpi even in the weirdest corner cases.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Printing a jpeg as a PCB layout? Could happen I suppose.
I wonder if DPI is like "megapixels" or "sears air compressor horsepower" where the engineering definition no longer has any relationship to the marketing definition.
For example, marketing could sell four toner colors at 100 dpi as being "400 dpi" after all its four toners each at 100 dpi, right? Something like that would explain why the OP's printer can't successfully output at better than 100 dpi, despite marketing claiming 600 dpi. Hell I could s
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Now all I need is a 2000 inch TV to view it on. I think Weird Al knows where to get one.
Yeah .. but Frank got the last one. And don't touch his remote either!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Upside down? (Score:5, Interesting)
Looks terrible (Score:3, Insightful)
The detail is fascinating but visually it looks terrible because it includes the infrared spectrum. It looks like a dead rock with sick black oceans. Awful.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, why not just set the infrared "vegetation" band to some hue near green so that it can at least look a little like the real thing? Or maybe just leave the IR pass out altogether? I like my Nasa-made "ghettopixel" blue marble image much better, thanks.
Re:Looks terrible (Score:5, Interesting)
WHAT
chromatic abberation in MY 1.21 gigapixel space photo?
this was NOT the future I was promised
send it back
Re: (Score:1)
Looking carefully, I think it's not chromatic aberration, it's a slight change in lighting conditions, cloud cover, and (perhaps) satellite orientation during the shot. I expect that each color filter image was taken separately, and a several minutes apart. Any movement, or color change between each exposure leads to those edge effects you see.
At least it doesn't have that fake, way too thick and bright "atmosphere" that the more natural colored NASA image has (the famous one centered on North America). T
Re: (Score:1)
Well, If you look at how much is covered in concrete and asphalt, then have a look at where the Mississippi dumps into the Gulf couple with how drinkable most river water is..... ........It's a dead rock with sick black oceans.
When you zoom in a little on google maps, all the green stuff is life, all the grey stuff is cancer.
Looks Photoshopped (Score:1, Flamebait)
The shadows are completely wrong. 'Nuff said.
Re:Looks Photoshopped (Score:5, Informative)
It looks photoshopped because it includes false color data from an infrared cam. It's not photoshopped.
Re: (Score:3)
The one thing that does bother me is the chromatic aberration - especially at higher magnifications, the overlap between the colors is very jarring.
I rather doubt the CA filters in Photoshop could handle this problem, but it would give you a more esthetic result.
Re: (Score:3)
This is the original image. You're free to do as many lossy operations on it as your heart desires.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not a photography expert especially when it comes to infrared imagery, but are there RAW files of that sort of thing where the post-processing could be done in an image editor? I think some people would prefer green for vegitation.
This looks like we have plenty of Spice reserves.
Why all this rust-orange? (Score:4, Informative)
Also, I looked at the zoomable image and zoomed in all the way in and.... saw mostly macroblocks? Is that still "amazing detail" in a sense that eludes me?
Re: (Score:2)
The article explains the color, maybe read it?
It also says just how big an area each pixel covers.
Re:Why all this rust-orange? (Score:5, Funny)
The article explains the color, maybe read it?
You must be new here.
Re:Why all this rust-orange? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I think the new "in" joke is to ask whether you've read the article.
I miss "No, I'm New Here!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Also, I looked at the zoomable image and zoomed in all the way in and.... saw mostly macroblocks? Is that still "amazing detail" in a sense that eludes me?
That particular Gigapan upload was 1.12Gpix which suggests that they did some sort of interpolation to make it appear more grandiose. And the rust-orange is because that is the most creative thing the russians could think of to use the IR band for (heck with making it some shade of dark green...)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Also, I looked at the zoomable image and zoomed in all the way in and.... saw mostly macroblocks? Is that still "amazing detail" in a sense that eludes me?
Seriously dude, I was all excited about being about to zoom in on the cleavage of a few million Indian chicks. No such luck. :(
what's the availability/licensing? (Score:5, Informative)
One reason the NASA global-coverage image sets that were released in 2002 (with updates starting in 2005) have become the de-facto standard source is that: 1) anyone can download them; and 2) they're in the public domain, so anyone can use them for any purpose. You can get a bunch of versions here [nasa.gov] and from the Visible Earth site linked at the bottom of that page.
This one looks cool, but further use will be limited if the only thing I can do with it is look at it in this online zooming browser.
Re:what's the availability/licensing? (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, there seems to be a lot of chromatic distortion on the image. Check out the clouds - there are three separate registrations for each color in the cloud image. Were their optics not calibrated, or did they take each color picture separately?
Re:what's the availability/licensing? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, yeah -- I bet that's it. It's not optical problems; it's a delay between the images of each color channel.
Not sure why they should take 30 minutes each, though.
Re: (Score:2)
For processing such an image for publicity release, it'd be customary to estimate motion vector fields between each pair of consecutively taken images, and apply motion compensation to register the clouds with minimal aberration. They apparently didn't do that.
Re: (Score:3)
If I'm understanding the article correctly, it sounds like they sent the raw data to "an educator named James Drake" on request. Presumably he's the one who did the overlay, but possibly doesn't have any specialist background in this area, so did it the quick-and-dirty way.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, good point.
Re: (Score:2)
I came into the comments
I do hope you've cleaned up after yourself. Slashdot is messy enough as is.
Re: (Score:1)
TFA says the pictures take ~30 minutes each, so that's the only thing that makes sense to me.
TFA says...
The satellite takes a full image of Earth from its stationary point over 35,000 kilometers above the Indian Ocean every 30 minutes, providing the material for the video below.
It doesn't say anything about shutter speed/exposure time or how long it takes to transfer a single image back to Earth.
It only says "wait 30 minutes between taking a picture".
Re: (Score:2)
If only there was an article [theverge.com] somewhere that described how they made the image...
The image certainly looks different than what we're used to seeing, and that's because the camera aboard the weather satellite combines data from three visible and one infrared wavelengths of light, a method that turns vegetation into the rust color that dominates the shot.
Re: (Score:1)
I've used the NASA's texture for my little OpenGL program, I must say it's very nice of their part to provide everything with great details and multiple layers.
Ugh, what's with the optics? (Score:2)
Holy chromatic aberration. You'd think an organization capable of blasting things into space could do a bit better than that.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's fine. That's why this is cool. They just need a lens that does just as well.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what happens when you spring for a high end body (to keep up with the Joneses) and then cheap out on crap lenses - and then don't bother creating a lens profile in Lightroom to correct CA in post. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no !!! (Score:2)
It is upside down. We are all going to fall off !!!
What's they big deal? (Score:3)
It still only has a resolution of 1KM per pixel and the chromatic aberration is terrible.
Re: (Score:2)
I would assume they have an optical zoom capability which they don't want to share with the internet, otherwise it would be kinda pointless.
In Soviet Russia... (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
They are trying with blimps
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_airship [wikipedia.org]
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/region/blimp-experiment-falls-flat-308073/ [post-gazette.com]
why do Russian and US colors vary so much? (Score:2)
NASA's blue marble photo is what I'm used to seeing http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/57000/57723/globe_east_540.jpg [nasa.gov]
So why does it look different in Russian photos? What version is more accurate?
Re:why do Russian and US colors vary so much? (Score:4, Informative)
The "Blue Marble" image you're pointing at is based on EOS (Terra/Aqua) imagery. The most recent NASA Blue Marble (Blue Marble 2012 [nasa.gov]) is a composite based on the new NPP Suomi spacecraft, with approximately a 1-km pixel resolution.
As to "accurate"... I think the Blue Marble images (based on the visible-light band sensors of their respective spacecraft) are closer to what a naked eye in orbit would perceive than the Russian imagery, which seems to include false-color infrared. But "naked eye in orbit" is scientifically less useful than the multi-spectral IR and visible all of these spacecraft can sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What they should do is just provide all the spectral channels in their literal numeric form, and let people colorize them as they prefer.
Re:why do Russian and US colors vary so much? (Score:5, Interesting)
I really dislike the 2012 Blue Marble, due to the very visible stripes where it's been quilted. It may have far more pixels, but I think the original 1972 Apollo 17 image is far more visually impressive.
But to me, nothing so far beats this 43 year old photo [wikipedia.org].
That's my home, there!
Re: (Score:2)
But to me, nothing so far beats this 43 year old photo.
That's my home, there!
Make my eyes tear up every time...
Re: (Score:2)
"The image certainly looks different than what we're used to seeing, and that's because the camera aboard the weather satellite combines data from three visible and one infrared wavelengths of light, a method that turns vegetation into the rust color that dominates the shot."
Does not corellate with my eyes (Score:2)
clouds (Score:2)
real picture (Score:2)
Where's the real picture? I don't want a stinkin flash app. 16-bit PNG FTW!
Waldo too! (Score:4, Funny)
The detail in the pic is just amazing.
And they still can't find Carmen Sandiego.
121 Mpixels vs photographic film (Score:3)
121 megapixels -- can any of the photo aficionados tell us how that compares with the shots of earth taken with the film cameras aboard the Apollo spacecraft? Some of those were mighty good.
Re:121 Mpixels vs photographic film (Score:5, Interesting)
Whole earth or half earth? (Score:1)
capturing the Earth in a single shot
Wouldn't the satellite be able to capture only about half of Earth in a single shot?
NOAA satellites image Earth at the same resolution (Score:3, Interesting)
3D! (Score:1)
As a hyperspectral guy... (Score:2)
I say "way to go Rooskies!"
Pay no mind to the fools who can't get past the spectral mapping.
Any UFO's ? (Score:2)
Hypnotic (Score:2)
That light-dark cycle has been going on for billions of years, ceaselessly, perfectly. An amazing machine.
The importance of perspective is underscored as well. From the geostationary satellite, it looks as though the earth is still. And it is - from that perspective. From the perspective of other universal bodies however, the earth is moving.
Kudos to the Russkies for capturing this perspective and to James Drake for creating the video.
that's Earth? (Score:2)
Suddenly, I'm concerned that we don't have enough protection against mind worms.
Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
NASA satellites use a collection of pictures from multiple flybys stitched together.
The [Russian] satellite [...] took an image [...] capturing the Earth in a single shot with 121-megapixels.
Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Interesting)
The Russian method, as linked in the article, is one large picture. It's actually a composite of different wavelengths, which is really cool. The rust effect is from the IR reflection of vegetation.
When NASA does it, as in the pictures that aren't this one, they stitch together a composite.
Re: (Score:2)
The rust is annoying though... Because they're compressing 4 wavelengths into 3 wavelengths. An image with only the RGB would look nicer. They could store the 4th IR channel as alpha channel...
Re:Wait, what? (Score:4, Informative)
The rust is annoying though... Because they're compressing 4 wavelengths into 3 wavelengths. An image with only the RGB would look nicer. They could store the 4th IR channel as alpha channel...
No matter which way you "look" at something you are either compressing or ignoring some quality of light. The "art" of astrophotography is therefore about how much information you intend to leave out and how much you squeeze into the narrow bands of light we humans can perceive. If you are not happy with the rendering, you might be able to source the uncompressed scientific data -- which will still only ever contain partial-information due to optical, CCD and other limitations -- and render it yourself [spacetelescope.org]... Assuming Roskosmos make their equivalent of FITS data available to the public like NASA does.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Both versions are stitched together. The Russian version stitches 121 million images with less temporal resolution.
Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Funny)
As a russian, I would like to take this opportunity to insolently question whether NASA still has any satellites at all, with all the funding cuts and everything.
Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
As neither Russian nor American I find it both funny and unfunny at the same time.
Yours,
Shroedinger the Cat.
Re:Wait, what? (Score:4, Interesting)
Thank you for Sputnik and Vostok.
You put the U.S. into such a panic about falling behind in science and technology that they funded my science education.
I couldn't have done it today. No more free tax-funded education. We have to go out and buy our education the free market. No more free tuition at City College. You have to be rich to study engineering in America now.
Re: (Score:1)
Thank you for Sputnik and Vostok.
You put the U.S. into such a panic about falling behind in science and technology that they funded my science education.
I couldn't have done it today. No more free tax-funded education. We have to go out and buy our education the free market. No more free tuition at City College. You have to be rich to study engineering in America now.
In the US, the people elect the government.
Re: (Score:1)
In the US, the people elect the government.
Only the people with lots of money.
Re: (Score:3)
All this time, I thought the Russians just used a pencil.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)